2. Background. The renaming and establishment actions in this organization change are designed to better address the need for specialized cryptologic and defensive cyberspace operations. Establishment of the separate commands provides for a more direct span of control in each specialized cryptologic or cyber area, which provides for more robust execution of fleet and national missions.

Mission. To provide and deploy trained cryptologic warfare officers and enlisted personnel, expertise, and equipment to support offensive cyberspace operations and defensive cyberspace operations for Commander, U.S. Fleet Cyber Command (COMUSFLTCYBERCOM) and Cyber National Mission Forces (CNMF); and to conduct cyberspace operations in support of assigned Defend the Nation missions as directed by Commander, CNMF.

Mission. To provide timely information on matters of national importance as they pertain to foreign policy; leadership intentions; military plans and intentions; indication and warning; threat finance; regional relationships; and internal security.

Mission. To provide and deploy trained and ready cryptologic warfare officers and cryptologic technicians to support the collection and exploitation of targets in support of national signals intelligence priorities. Commanding Officer Cryptologic Warfare Activity Sixty-Seven Cryptologic Warfare Group Six Fort George G Meade, MD 20755

4 Mission. To provide and deploy Sailors to support the National Security Agency in the development, sustainment, and employment of cyber, information assurance, and signals intelligence collection capabilities while reinforcing information technology infrastructures and providing subject matter expertise in cyberspace operations; electronic warfare; information operations; and special technical operations to inform special operations, kinetic, and non-kinetic operational planning initiatives.

*(COMUSFLTCYBERCOM is the operational commander, echelon 2, immediate superior in command, reporting senior and first flag officer for CWG SIX and all the new commands.).

4. Action

a. Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command (COMUSFLTFORCOM) will take appropriate action, consistent with reference (a), to rename NIOC MD and establish the new commands and, in coordination with COMUSFLTCYBERCOM, ensure that a new mission, functions, and tasks directive is issued for each command within 90 days. Distribution of those directives will include Director, Navy Staff Organization and Management Branch (DNS-33).

c. DNS-33 will revise reference (b) per organization actions directed in this notice.

5. Records Management. Records created as a result of this notice, regardless of media or format, will be managed per SECNAV Manual 5210.1 of January 2012.

6. Cancellation Contingency. This notice will remain in effect for 1 year or until superseded, whichever occurs first. The organization action will remain effective until changed by Director, Navy Staff. J. A. Sears, III Director of Management

Releasability and distribution: This instruction is cleared for public release and is available electronically only via Department of the Navy Issuances Web site, http://doni.documentservices.dla.mil

yoshi wrote:sum1: saw a friend describe CWA-66 mission as: 'to provide and deploy trained and ready cryptologic warfare officers and cryptologic technicians to support the collection and exploitation of targets in support of national signals intelligence priorities.'

Because: "to create more CDR Command opportunities for the FCC/C10F fiefdom" didn't sound quite right to the SECNAV.

yoshi wrote:sum1: saw a friend describe CWA-66 mission as: 'to provide and deploy trained and ready cryptologic warfare officers and cryptologic technicians to support the collection and exploitation of targets in support of national signals intelligence priorities.'

Because: "to create more CDR Command opportunities for the FCC/C10F fiefdom" didn't sound quite right to the SECNAV.

There it is!

Honestly, the part that immediately jumped out at me was counting how many title 10 operations related to cryptologic warfare are included in the following mission statement:

Mission. To provide timely information on matters of national importance as they pertain to foreign policy; leadership intentions; military plans and intentions; indication and warning; threat finance; regional relationships; and internal security.

Spoiler alert... not many. Maybe they just provide bodies to ONI/DIA.

Looking forward to getting to the MD area and actually figuring all this out. Haven't seen the inside of a NIOC/cryppie command since 2011.

yoshi wrote:you get it figured out, let me know. probably be able to find me in an FCA, or something joint.

Yea, well, if we could have reasonably swung it we would be back somewhere joint again, too. I always said I'd never go to the mothership, but I also said that about a surface ship and that was one of the best (albeit professionally challenging) tours I've done. I'm trying to keep an open mind. It's tough to change things you think are dumb from the outside.

I agree that these stats are useless. Apparently, we want them to be useless. They are useless because we continue to get the denominator wrong. When I was the OCM (cue the old guy music), I owned the stats and changed the denominator. The denominator was not the number of selects, but the number of people who shared the experience. X of 12 who were CRCs were picked, etc. Sustained superior performance is a crazy thing to attempt to measure and a false characterization that too many continue to hide behind. What we do most certainly matters and so does how well we do whatever it is. These stats could be meaningful, could incentivize behavior, and could reflect community values, but we are lazy and don't care to make them meaningful. Hate to be critical, but we struggle with an inability to think. Part of the reason I am where I am...Silicon Valley) and why I have largely given up on getting others to think differently. If you'd like to discuss, I am at seanheritage@gmail.com. I remain eager to help for as long as I remain on AD (and longer). Keep pushing for us to become more than we are...please.

Arkad wrote:They are useless because we continue to get the denominator wrong. When I was the OCM (cue the old guy music), I owned the stats and changed the denominator. The denominator was not the number of selects, but the number of people who shared the experience. X of 12 who were CRCs were picked, etc. Sustained superior performance is a crazy thing to attempt to measure and a false characterization that too many continue to hide behind.

I think that's the key. The denominator shifts the value of the stats from useless to useful. It's especially useful for a community like ours which I'd argue seems to experience a greater level of turmoil than most others. The amount of change we deal with on a year over year basis is just nuts, and I think it frustrates the workforce to a certain degree.

Arkad wrote:They are useless because we continue to get the denominator wrong. When I was the OCM (cue the old guy music), I owned the stats and changed the denominator. The denominator was not the number of selects, but the number of people who shared the experience. X of 12 who were CRCs were picked, etc. Sustained superior performance is a crazy thing to attempt to measure and a false characterization that too many continue to hide behind.

I think that's the key. The denominator shifts the value of the stats from useless to useful. It's especially useful for a community like ours which I'd argue seems to experience a greater level of turmoil than most others. The amount of change we deal with on a year over year basis is just nuts, and I think it frustrates the workforce to a certain degree.

So if we all agree the denominator needs to change, what data/categories would you like to see?

Arkad wrote:They are useless because we continue to get the denominator wrong. When I was the OCM (cue the old guy music), I owned the stats and changed the denominator. The denominator was not the number of selects, but the number of people who shared the experience. X of 12 who were CRCs were picked, etc. Sustained superior performance is a crazy thing to attempt to measure and a false characterization that too many continue to hide behind.

I think that's the key. The denominator shifts the value of the stats from useless to useful. It's especially useful for a community like ours which I'd argue seems to experience a greater level of turmoil than most others. The amount of change we deal with on a year over year basis is just nuts, and I think it frustrates the workforce to a certain degree.

So if we all agree the denominator needs to change, what data/categories would you like to see?

I think, for a start, rather than the number of selects with a particular kind of specialty or experience, we need to see that number compared to the total number of people with that particular experience or specialty. Is the distribution similar? For example, if 90% of selectees had joint experience, and only 10% of the total records reviewed by the board had joint experience, you can surmise that joint experience was valued. If 90% of selectees had completed their IWC qual, and 90% of the total records reviewed by the board had finished their IWC qual, you know it was looked at, but wouldn't represent an opportunity to set yourself apart. Whereas if 90% of selectees had XO/OIC, but only 5% in total had it, you KNOW you absolutely NEED to get that experience (if we're thinking of promotion as a min-max proposition).

The one thing I'd REALLY like to see, however, is the relative hard and soft breakout numbers for a selectee group. And a relative distribution above/below reporting senior average for selectees vs non-selects. I think that would start to build a more accurate picture of who we're selecting and why. If you're #10 out of 100 and someone else is #2 out of 3 ... it matters, but realistically how MUCH does it matter? How high do you need to be over reporting senior average for it to actually resonate with the board? 0.1? 0.3? 0.5 or more?

This is just a spitball off the top of my head while I should be writing an ethics paper... so feel free to crush me or add your own inputs. Cheers!